sewhite2000

Seems like a really small part to generate such hatred and the use of a hateful, anti-woman term. I haven't seen the movie in many years. Doesn't she ultimately chase after him and kiss him and contemplate running away with him? Or am I hallucinating that? Her character had to move on in his absence and his suddenly being alive I would assume was genuinely upsetting. But anyway something like 80 per cent of the movie is Hanks alone on an island. Her part, while critical, is relatively marginal to the overall story. It's Cast Away, by the way, two words, sort of a nice little poetic license to imply what has happened to Hanks' character.

I'm unsure why a nine-month-old thread with a similar concept is suddenly back above this thread. Possibly a TCM administrator will merge the threads at some point (if they ever see them under all the Korean spam). But I'll stay loyal to this newer thread since I already posted here. How about Felix Bressart? I haven't seen him on anybody's list so far. Three Smart Girls Grow Up, Ninotchka, Edison the Man, Comrade X, Ziegfeld Girl, The Shop Around the Corner, Blossoms in the Dust, To Be or Not to Be and a one-scene appearance in Portrait of Jennie, which turned out to be his next to last film. He died relatively young at 57 (which, as every year passes, seems younger and younger to me!). That scene with Jimmy Stewart in Shop Around the Corner in which he realizes Stewart is going to walk away from approaching his true love now that they've discovered her identity, and he has both a sadness but a steadfast commitment to his friend, is truly great acting on the part of both men. That's one of the greatest scenes in move history, in my opinion. Here he is getting the center of the screen with Hepburn and Tracy standing on the margins, no less.

So many lists already. I think if I posted a Top 10 in each gender, I'd largely be repeating a lot of people who are on here already. I feel like I must mention Thomas Mitchell, who was probably the first character actor I really became aware of in my early classic film fan days. In the vaunted year of 1939 alone, he was in Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Only Angels Have Wings and Stagecoach, the last for which he won an Oscar. That has to be the single greatest year in character actor history!

That's interesting. I've never been on TCM's Facebook page. Do they actually respond to fans' questions with any regularity on there? Because they certainly don't here.

There is a thread called TCM Premieres that's usually on Page One or Page Two of General Discussions, and you can go to it to learn all the latest TCM premieres. It hasn't been updated for nine days and has fallen to Page Four, but here's a link to the most recent page on the thread:

Okay, I don't want to argue about it.

You definitely need to see Detour! And The Black Cat!

Yes, this topic comes up from time to time. Part of the reason is that there's a "library" of films that are at least partially tied to the collection of films owned by Ted Turner when the network was founded. I use the term cautiously, because every time I do, someone posts that my assumptions are ignorant of the workings of licensing and package deals. But there is a group of films that TCM is clearly able to show for no or very little cost. Most of these films were originally made by MGM, United Artists, RKO and Warner Bros. (pre-1949). Also some foreign films and films originally produced by an independent studio like American International Pictures that ultimately ended up under the control of one of these bigger entities. Also, there are films that have fallen into the public domain. Now within this body of films, there are some that are clearly shown more than others and some that are shown rarely or not at all. From time to time, somebody on here will post something like, "Why the heck doesn't TCM ever show Film X? It's from MGM!", and since nobody at TCM ever comments on these decisions (ever), we mostly just have to guess the reasons based on certain assumptions. TCM seems to show movies that are more critically acclaimed or had great box office success than those that aren't or didn't. Also, TCM is a "star-driven" network (credit where credit is due - TopBilled is the first person I remember posing this theory), and so, films starring Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn or John Wayne or Judy Garland or the really big of the big stars tend to get shown the most often than films with B-level stars or actors you've never heard of. Hope that's helpful.

I'm not placing this beauty! May I ask who this is? My guesses are Claudia Cardinale or Dawn Wells???

imdb lists the primary production company of Far from the Madding Crowd as MGM. I realize it was shot in England and possibly with an English crew, but I'm still calling it an American film.

I think he/she was specifically nauseated by the glowing article on the TCM hosts referenced in the post above that one. Seeing as TCM gets virtually zero outside publicity, I personally don't mind a puff piece. All the bother and fuss about the hosts and what their voices sound like and how they dress baffles me. Like the author of the article, I'm charmed by the refreshingly retro nautre of the intros/outros TCM has so far not abandoned. The only station left on television, I would assume, where a host stands in front of a camera and introduces upcoming programming with no SFX or loud music.

oh, okay. It was in all caps, so I thought it was some kind of acronym.

I almost always enjoy British films when TCM shows them. A lot of them I don't remember by name, as TCM plays them less frequently (many of them I've only seen once each), and I'm usually less familiar with the actors. Some of those kitchen sink dramas of the late 50s to the mid 60s are a bit overwrought, but usually very well acted. I'm looking forward to Peter Finch night on Wednesday. I'm going to skip his American fare this time around - The Nun's Story, Far from the Madding Crowd, Network - and give a try to two movies I've never even heard of, No Love for Johnnie and Girl with Green Eyes.

Sorry, have no idea what this stands for!

Yes, she definitely references fluffer flicks in her very first sentence. This is a term that possibly not everyone knows nor especially needs to know! So, I'm not sure what it says about me that it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of the thread. I can't even begin to explain it without half the words ending up in my final post looking like this: ****, ****, *******. Google it, if you really need to know! (A year or two back, I used the word "squick" or "squickish" in a thread, which I just assumed everyone would know, and got several confused replies. I guess it essentially means being sexually aroused by something most people would find disgusting. Again, I don't know what it says about me that I knew that word!)

If there was an "uncomfortable laughter" emoji, I would use it!

Could very well be! "Watch yourself! There are vultures! Vultures everywhere!" (that sneaky little pickpocket in Casablanca)

The last time I saw Penny Serenade, I was kinda struck by this bathing scene where a very real, very young baby is being bathed by the actors. I kind of wondered whose kid it was and how agreeable the parents were to the situation. Did they get paid? Or did the director just yell out "Find me a baby!" and they just grabbed somebody? The kind of permission one has to go through for this sort of thing I'm sure is infinitely more stringent now than it was then.

Just guessing the implication is the site is circling overhead keeping an eye on events?

I'm glad you said that! Because I mentioned that in the thread I started back in February! That's perfect proof things have changed! Turturro begs the producer played by David Paymer that he not be made to lose on such a simple question. Back then, everyone understood Marty was the Best Picture winner of 1955,, and this is represented by dozens of people shouting "Marty!" at their TV sets before Turturro gives the wrong answer (and this movie is based on real events, so I believe this is the actual question Herbie Stempel agreed to get wrong). Today, because of the change of how the years are considered, whether it's deliberate manipulation by the Academy or not, if Stempel/Turturo said On the Waterfront was the Best Picture winner of 1955 on a TV quiz show, he'd be RIGHT! And that, in my mind, is just wrong! If a young person who's only known the new numbering system watches Quiz Show today, he/she is going to be really confused.

Yes, but if you watched this year's ceremonies, they were constantly referring to the "wrong" year, which drove me crazy. They introduced Eva Marie Saint as "the Best Supporting Actress winner of 1955", when she'd always been traditionally thought of as the winner for 1954 until a few years ago. They introduced Warren Beatty and Faye Dunnaway as "stars of Bonnie and Clyde, a Best Picture nominee from 1968", when until a few years ago they would have said 1967. They introduced Rita Moreno as "the Best Supporting Actress winner of 1962", when Robert Osborne would have called her the winner of 1961. See the trend? Now ... is that because the Academy has an agenda to change all these years to represent the year of the ceremony and not the year of the picture? Or is it because the people who write these introductions are having to look up the years of these winners and nominees on Google because they don't know off the top of their heads, and these are the results they're getting?

Yes, as the Academy reinvents itself and its ceremony, it seems like this is a rule invented for some long-ago forgotten reason that's probably no longer relevant and should probably be done away with so that this never happens again. A film has to play in Los Angeles before the end of a calendar year to be eligible for Oscar nominations for that year. Casablanca played in New York in December of 1942 but not in LA until January of 1943. So, it had to wait an entire year to be considered for Oscar eligibility. It's probably testament to how great that film is that it had to sit around for a whole year, and nothing else came out in that time to supplant it in the Academy's mind. I'm thinking Crash and Hurt Locker were probably both films that had their origins in the film festival circuit and had gradually widening releases and just didn't play in LA before New Year's Eve in the official years of their release. I think it's time to eliminate this weird rule insisting the film play in this one city to be eligible.

I think I started a thread about this very topic or at least introduced the idea to another thread. This is a point of consternation for me. For almost all of Oscar history, a film was considered to have won an Oscar for the year it was released, not for the year of the ceremony. If you look at those lavish Robert Osborne coffee table books, they read something like this: 1944 Oscars (Ceremony held March 13, 1945) Best Picture: Going My Way Etc. I'm making up the date. The point is, in Mr. Osborne's mind, Going My Way was the Best Picture of 1944. However, in the Internet Age, if you do a Google search of if you look at the Academy's own Website, Going My Way is considered the Best Picture of 1945. I don't really know why this shift happened, but it did, and it has met with approval by the Academy itself, who want the focus to be on the year of the ceremony, not the year the films were actually released. In my mind, this leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion. I expressed my passionate unhappiness about this turn of events on that previous thread and was met by a deluge of ho-hum responses or confusion about what I was even talking about, so I learned this is not a big deal to most other people!

Could you clarify what you're trying to imply by this question? The biggest grossing movie of the year is going to be Black Panther, which I didn't swoon over as much as a lot of critics but still thought was pretty entertaining. I wouldn't describe it as schlock. In fact, prior to this announcement of a new Best Popular Film category, there was definitely a movement pushing for it to get a Best Picture nomination.

So, although you didn't actually answer my question can you ever actually make a post without attacking liberals when we all know you're supposed to reserve this political crap for the off-topic threads, you show by your last post that the answer is no.